My comments on the final draft of the 4th WGI Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were subsequently published as a result of an application in the USA of the Freedom of Information Act.

It seems that my comments on the latest IPCC WGI AR5 Report may not be revealed, since the Report was launched in Switzerland who may not have a Freedom of information Act.

I therefore thought that I might as well publish my comments myself.

They are on an Excel Spreadsheet. I tried to make them more accessible. You cannot Select All and Copy and other ways I looked at are blocked by a password. However, I was able to save it in PDF form which is attached to this post.

With the Second Report I devoted two newsletters to my efforts in trying to find out what had happened to my comments by reading through the whole report. This was the Report where they actually agreed with me that the models have never been “validated”, so after that they were merely “evaluated”, giving “projections” instead of “predictions”. The whole Report consisted, thus of “evaluations” by their well paid “scientists” and so do all the subsequent Reports.

I have had a quick look through the current Report to see what has happened to my comments and it is plainly obvious that they have ignored all of them.

This paragraph is confused. You seem to have made a lot of "observations" which show what we all know already, that
the climate is "changing", but "evidence" that you can explain it seems to be dependent on "simulations", and
"projections" neither of which constitute "evidence" unless they are capable of successful future prediction

2

SPM

2

8

2

11

"Evidence" of past change in climate is all very convincing, but you have no evidence at all of future change of climate.

3

SPM

2

20

2

21

These are all speculations about the future. There is no evidence that any of them are successful

4

SPM

2

30

2

34

The periods you quote are ridiculously short and many of the observations are dubious. It is absurd to conclude that they
are unusual on a geological scale

5

SPM

2

36

2

39

It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface,which would require random placement of
thermometers over the entire earth's surface, let alone the "climate system" which means the entire atmosphere,.so you
cannot tell whether either is "warming" The claim that the whole lot is warming "unequivocally" fs therefore without
scientific or observational foundation and is thus more the nature of a political slogan or a religious belief than a
scientically established conclusion. Also you do not state over what period tuis "warming" is supposed to be happening.
Then, according to the unreliable "Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly" there ishas been no warming for the past
ten years. How "unequivocal" is that?

6

SPM

3

4

3

4

Your claim that you have measured "globally averaged" near surface: temperature is untrue. In order to do so it would be
necessary to distribute thermometers randomly over the entire surface of the earth, including oceans deserts and forests.
The "global surface temperature anomaly" which you quote is very far from such a scientifically based system as it
consists of multiple averages based on unrepresentative samples from non standardized condions which have very large
uncertainties and biases whic greatly exceed the supposed :warming,: and are never estimated.

7

SPM

3

21

3

25

Even US weather stations are rarely capable of measuring temperature to better than one degree and it is simply
ridiclous to quote figires that are subhect to huge uncertainties to one or even two decimals of a degree. Weather
forecasters just anever use decomals and most of their claims are considered approximate. The figures you quote are so
small they do not establsh a claim for a significant warming. Also, the amounts are so small that their consequences are
undetectable.

8

SPM

3

27

3

44

These are merely the opinions of biased "experts". They are not based on scientific studies.

9

SPM

3

46

3

48

At last some commonsense. Measurementt of "extreme events is so crude and the past record so unreliable tht it is
currently impossible to judge whether they are worse or better

10

SPM

3

50

3

55

In footnote, the "probabilty" figures are no more than guesswork supplied by biased "experts" They have no basis in
scientifically establshed statistical studies

11

SPM

4

1

4

17

These are merely the opinions of biased "experts". They are not based on scientific studies.

12

SPM

4

29

4

55

Results marred by too much biased opinion on highly inaccute highly variable figures only available over a very recent
period

13

SPM

5

1

5

6

Cherry picking. You choose the Arctic but not the Antarctic where ice mass is increasing. No actual temperature
measurementa are ever made so changes may be due to changes in the temperature of ocean currents or in the amount
of precipitation. Arctic ice has fluctuated in the past whjen we did not have the sophisticated measurement syrtems.
There is evidence that Arctic ice size fluctuates

14

SPM

5

8

5

39

Much biased estimates on lmited data. where surface temperatures are rarely measured and sometimes affected by
oceans or precipitation changes. The increase in Arctic ice and the extent of some glaciers seems neglected and
historical perspective ignored. All this has certainly happened before.

15

SPM

5

44

5

52

Tide gauge measurements with modern measurement equioment with GPS levelling show no evidence of sea level
change over the past ten years in places like Australia, New Zealand or the Pacific islands. Judgements based on older
less reliable measurements affected by hurricanes and tsunamis and by changes in both the land and in th local
harbours give spurious indications of change. Satellite measurements have levelled out and are influenced by ocean

16

SPM

6

3

6

12

There is a complete mismatch between measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which take place almost
exclusively over the ocean, and emissioms, which take place almost exclusively over land surfaces, This means that
there is no scientifically observed relationship btween them. The figures in this section ar therefore subject to unknown
inaccuracy

17

SPM

6

30

6

33

It is wrong to assume that the pH of the ocean is uniform. There are parts which currently emit carbon dioxide and are
presumably saturated, without evident harm to the local flora and fauna. Increased dissolved carbon doxide would merely
increase these areas, encouraging creatures that benefit, and adaption by evolution for others

18

SPM

6

41

6

48

Genuine globally averaged temperatures cannot be measured. These comcuisions are based on highly inaccurate
methods for which inaccuracies and biases are far greater than the increases claimed. The period covered is very small
on a geological scale and the estimates by the biased experts are worthless

19

SPM

7

1

7

18

More unreliable estimates from biased experts plus more absence of a geological perspective

20

SPM

7

24

7

32

Sheer speculation based on an absurd misinterpretation of the earth's energy supply, distorted to pretend that it is
entirely comtrolled by radiation exchanges, The earth's energy is receved by the sun only by day. The absorbed heat is
used by all organisms, partly removed by convection and evaporation and the remainder radiated to the exhaust
(space)_ from the earth, and the heated atmosphere. There is no evidenec that the so-called :greenhouse gases" play
any part in this and models basd on your theory cannot currently improve on conventional weather forecasters

21

SPM

7

34

7

46

The absence of information over land surfaces maks all these figures dubious. But there is no evidence that they affect
the climate.

22

SPM

8

1

8

5

The "Energy Budget" Is a joke.. The energy of the earth or at any place on it is never :"balanced" and the figures given in
the diagram are all complex averages from skewed variability distributions of poorly characterised averages., Your
current version even ventures to give (unbelievabe) uncertainties which immediately cast doubt on any supposed
"surplus". Your models are thus calculating a supposed increase above a moving target. The model does not show
what happens when the energy is received by day only in variable amounts on varying surfaces, and it omits the enrgy
which is used to make life possible on earth.or what really happens to it before the residue is radiated outwards

23

SPM

8

5

8

44

All these figures are from your unbelievable climate models, which ignore or downplay all the chief influences on the
climate established by over 200 years of meteorologicak science. It is not enough just to have :confidence" The whole
system has to be shown to be more effective than what is available now from the weather forercasters.Simulation of the
past and forecasts for the far future are not enough. .

WG1 AR5 Second Order Draft Review - Comments Page 1 of 19

No

Chapter

From
Page

From
Line

To
Page

To
Line

Comments

24

SPM

8

50

8

53

Your :"climate system" is incomplete. It should include the sun and the earth itself and it must include the fact that energy
reception takes place only by day. It must also include the fate of the enrgy received, which includes its utilisation by
living organisms, its transfer by conduction, latent heat, and departure of the residue to space by radiation from heated
atmosphere at evry level as well as from the earth itself Thw WHOLE system is a heat engine with the sun as an energy
source and space as the exhaust. Whether trace gases play a part in this system has not been established as it is
swallowed up by the "chaos" of fluid behaviour which you claim to have eliminated,

25

SPM

9

1

9

39

In AR1 was a Chapter entitled "Validation of climate models" In the First Draft of AR2 was a similar Chapter. I
commented at the time that since no attempt at genuine validation was being attempted, the Title was inapropriate. To
my surprise, you agreed with me, and in the next Draft you not only altered the title to "Evaluation of climate models" but
you also changed the word ":validation": to :"evaluation" no less than fifty times throughout the Chapter, Since then, the
word "validation" has been forbidden. Not only that, you also banned the use of the word "prediction: and replaced it by
the word :"projection": All this is an admission that none of your models are capable of "climate prediction. All you get are
"projecftions" where you have to believe the initial assumptions before you take any notice of them. "Validation" would
require an extensive series of tests to discover the predictive capahilities of the models in all circumstances for which
they are to be used, to a satisfacory level of accuracy. Not only has this never been done, there has, up to now, been no
discussion on how it may be done. Because of this it is possble to assert that the models should not be used for

26

SPM

10

6

10

6

"Detection and Attribution': is the name you have given to the process of guesswork by your paid experts which replces a
proper scientific study based on genuine experiments.You think you can get away with using "correlation: which we all
know can never prove causation, merely by changing the name

27

SPM

10

28

11

38

Largely devoted to guesswork based on belief in your absurd model

28

SPM

12

11

13

13

"Near term projections" are very dangerous but you do your best to make them as wide as possble with doubtful liklihood
Figures 1.4,1.5 1.11 and TS12 show that short tern projectios are poor for temperature ab sea level and Figure 1.7
shows that projections for methane are worthless.

29

SPM

14

44

17

48

The long term projections are even wider and even more uncertain, but I suppose you are relying on the press and the
activists who always chiiose the extreme values for their propaganda

30

SPM

20

1

20

5

The uncertainties are unbelievable when they are "available" so they are even greater when they are "not available".

31

SPM

21

1

21

5

Both graphs conceal variability. The top one ignores figures over land and the bottom is grossly untepresentative.

32

9

3

19

3

25

In AR1 was a Chapter entitled "Validation of climate models" In the First Draft of AR2 was a similar Chapter. I
commented at the time that since no attempt at genuine validation was being attempted, the Title was inapropriate. To
my surprise, you agreed with me, and in the next Draft you not only altered the title to "Evaluation of climate models" but
you also changed the word ":validation": to :"evaluation" no less than fifty times throughout the Chapter, Since then, the
word "validation" has been forbidden. Not only that, you also banned the use of the word "prediction: and replaced it by
the word :"projection": All this is an admission that none of your midels are capable of "climate prediction"; all you get are
"projections" where yoi have to believe the initial assumptions before you take any notice of them. "Validation" would
require an extensive series of tests to discover the predictive capabilities of the models in all circumstances for which
they are to be used, to a satisfacory level of accuracy. Not only has this never been done, there has, up to now, been no
discussion on how it may be done. Because of this it is possble to assert that the models shoukd not be used for

33

11

2

22

2

22

"Predictability" depends on successful prediction over the complete range intended to be covered, to a satisfactory level
pf accuracy. No attempt to carry out this procedure is to be found anywhere in this Chapter, so there is no reason to
suppose that any of its conclusions are worth consideration.as opinions on pedictability.

34

10

6

39

6

39

"Detection" and "Attribution" are mechanisms of organised guesswork They provide only speculation, not evidence of
cause and effect, however much "confidence": is expressed in them.

35

10

89

5

89

5

"Observed global annual mean temperature" What nonsnse! Nobody has ever measured such a quantity. It would
require somultaneous measurements of thermometers situated randomly over the entire earth's surface. Including the
oceans. You are surely referring to the so-called "Annual Global Surface Temperature Anomaly" which is not a
temperature at all. but a complex multi-average of a large number of unrepresentative non-standard weather station
maximum an minimum temperature measurements. This concoction bears only a very slight resemblence to any genuine
global mean suface temperature

36

12

3

12

3

12

All you have got are "projections" NOT "predictions" Since none of the models has been properly validated by showing
whether it is capable of successful prediction, you have no right to make any predictions, stating what WILL happen. All
you can say is that it MIGHT happen

37

12

3

21

3

21

All you have got are "projections" NOT "predictions" Since none of the models has been properly validated by showing
whether it is capable of successful prediction, you have no right to make any predictions, stating what WILL happen. All
you can say is that it MIGHT happen

38

12

3

3

8

16

All these figures are based on personal opinions of the value of untested models. We await with bated breath your future
report on whether any of them are successful

39

12

9

3

9

14

You are confessing that you cannot predict future climate. All you can do is give us the collective assessments of people
who have a conflict of interest by supplying levels of :"confidence": in their opinions that justify their continuing salaty and
status.

40

12

20

37

29

37

Computer models do not carry out :'experiments" they make speculations.

41

14

3

4

3

13

The usual stuff about "evaluation" "simulation" and "assessment": but no mention of whether any of it is actually
successful in predicting what is going ti happen.

42

14

3

17

7

25

More unreliable estimates from biased experts

43

TS

4

14

4

14

"Globally averaged near surface temperature" What nonsnse! Nobody has ever measured such a quantity. It would
require simultaneous measurements of thermometers situated randomly over the entire earth's surface, including the
oceans. You are surely referring to the so-called "Annual Global Surface Temperature Anomaly" which is not a
temperature at all. but a complex multi-average of a large number of unrepresentative non-standard weather station
maximum an minimum temperature measurements. This concoction bears only a very slight resemblence to any genuine
global mean suface temperature

44

Atlas

1

1

16

70

A significant number of these graphs show a definite probability that there will be little or no change in any property by
2100, so you are covered whatever happens. .

45

0

6

6

6

7

I refer to the Second Annex, TableAII.1.3 where you have not had the courage to include decadal temperature figures for
2010.

46

0

25

1

25

1

In Annex iii , Glossary, there is no definition of "Sea Level"

47

13

1

1

70

30

The . Chapter should be about Sea Level,and it should describe the observations and their reliability. Instead the whole
subject has been distorted in order to build a case that Sea Level Change complies with the absurd IPCC climate
models.tt attempts to claim that change must be assocaited with increased melting of ice, but fails to note that there has
been no increase in the supposed global temperature, as measured by the so-called mean global surface temperature
anomaly for over ten years,. There have never been any surface temperature measurements on ice or glaciers and the
most likely explanations of any melting are either changes in ocean currents (with the Arctic) or changes in precipitation.

WG1 AR5 Second Order Draft Review - Comments Page 2 of 19

No

Chapter

From
Page

From
Line

To
Page

To
Line

Comments

48

13

1

1

70

30

For land surfaces the "Sea Level" is Relative, that is to say it is the difference between the level of the sea and the
position of the equipment attached to the land..Both the sea and the land change from time to time and from one
measurement to another.The level of the sea may change because of storm protection measures, dredging of the
harbour, or measures to increase local water level to enable larger ships to enter. The land position can change in many
ways. The extent of the land may increase by reclamation frpm the sea, or decrease by erosion. It may subside from
removal of mnierals or ground water or from weight of buildings.The equipment and its ground attachment tend to be
damaged by storms and replaced in a different place. Many records are fragmented for this reason. Most of these
changes cause an upwards bias, so it is wrong, as is claimed in this Chapter, to claim that they are necessarily related to
changes on the climate. or to supposed increases in the level of the ocean caused by melting ice..It also means that the
comprehensive amalgamation of sea level "changes"carried out in this Chapter is not a reliable guide to future sea level.

49

13

3

15

3

22

Sea level measurements are not conducted in a representative random fashion all over the earth, so you cannot have a
:"global mean". There seems no point in any sort of average, either. Each set of measurements has to be considered
seperately

50

13

3

15

3

22

We do not know the average temperature of the earth's surface today so it is unbelievable that you can cliam that it was
2-3 degrees warmer a million years ago. Your claim that only three measurements can give a "global average" is absurd.

51

13

1

1

70

30

Accuracy figures are omitted for most of your figures. Previous IPCC Reports gave very high inaccuracy levels for sea
level measurements

52

1

5

19

5

22

You seem here to be denying that there has been appreciable change in the average temperature of the earth for :"many
centuries" How many is that? What about the "Little Ice Age" or the :Roman Warm Period?.

53

1

7

48

7

48

Your Glossary no longer assumes that there is a necessary human component to "Climate Change" There is multiple
evidence for Changes in the Climate, but no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible.

54

1

9

6

9

35

The records shown are not "observations" and they are not "temperatures". They are also not "globally averaged.They
are a set of multiple averages, subtracted from an overall average, compiled from a vaying non-standardised set of
maximum an minimum temperature measurements at varying weather sations and ship measurements. They were
previously treated as "Mean Global Temperature anomaly" The uncertainties attached to each figure are very great,
Individual temperature measurements are rarely accurate to better than one degree, so a claimed "trend" over 100 years
of less than one degree has a very low level of statistical significance.

55

1

10

14

10

20

Measurements of the gases are almost all restricted to over the sea. Emissions are almot all over the land, so it is
impossible to find a relationshhip between them without a comprehensivr programme of land based measurements

56

1

10

28

10

32

The overall trend for methane is a decline in th rate of increase You choose to ignore this with a few recent
measurements. However, with your temperature record you cooses to ignore recent behaviour, because it has been
static for ten years, and emphasize only the previous :"trend".

57

1

14

6

14

6

The 90% figures are sheer guesswork, unrelated to any genuine study on uncertainties

58

1

16

40

16

41

These levels are sheer guesswork unrelated to any scientific study of uncertainty

59

1

30

7

30

7

These are not "observed": temperatures. They are a set of multiple avearges, subtracted from an overall average,
compiled from a vaying non-standardised set of maximum an minimum temperature measurements at varying weather
stations and ship measurements. They were previously treated as "Mean Temperature anomaly" The uncertainties
attached to each figure are very great Individual temperature measurements are rarely accurate to better than one
degree, so a claimed "trend" over 100 years of less than one degree has a very low level of statistical significance.

60

1

39

1

39

15

This diagram shows that the Temperature anomaly has bee stable for ten years and that none of the previous IPCC
Reports predicted it successfully

61

1

42

1

42

11

Shows that methane projections have been wrong in every IPCC Report

62

1

46

1

46

12

See my comments on Chapter13. Tide gauge measurements are too variable to be averaged sensibly. They are not
global and there is evidence that curently they are not increasing

63

1

55

1

55

11

Does not dare to put in the tempeature figure for the decade 2000 to 2012 because the temperature stabilized

64

2

3

52

3

57

"Globally averaged near surface temperature" What nonsnse! Nobody has ever measured such a quantity. It would
require simultaneous measurements of thermometers situated randomly over the entire earth's surface, including the
oceans. You are surely referring to the so-called "Annual Global Surface Temperature Anomaly" which is not a
temperature at all. but a complex multi-average of a large number of unrepresentative non-standard weather station
maximum an minimum temperature measurements. This concoction bears only a very slight resemblence to any genuine
global mean suface temperature

65

2

4

2

5

47

These are merely the opinions of biased "experts". They are not based on scientific studies.involvong comparisons wiyj
actual future behaviour

66

2

20

24

20

33

Statistical methods usually assume that all samples have been obtained under identical circumstances. For time series
of climate observations this condition may apply to the measurements of trace gases, but it certainly does not apply to
the "Annual mean temperature anpmaly or to the average sea level, This means that plausible "trends" of temperature or
sea level and most of the other climate features presented in this Chapter cannot be obtained by any of the standard
statistical methods. This particularly applies to long term series. Some short term series may be used where conditions
of measurement are known to have been similar. For these reasons I regard most of the "trends" shown in this Chapter,
and particularly thw temperature time series in this Chapter and the sea level series in Chapter 13 as unreliable.

67

2

21

42

26

56

This "Energy Budget" is implausible as it ignores all the components of the climate which have been established by
meteorology.The Climate is a heat engine where the energy comes from the sun';s radiation. and after its utilization, the
residue is radiated to space, which is the exhaust. All energy exchange takes place by conduction, convection and latent
heat transfer. Forecasting is inhibited because of the prime importance of fluid flow, which is subjecct to :chaos" The
IPCC model replaces all this with internal energy exchange entirely by radiation, and it also assumes that the earth does
not rotate, that the sun shines with constant intensity, both day and night and that the "chaos"resulting from the
unpredictable behaviour of the atmosphere and the oceans is conveniently eliminated

68

2

39

20

40

13

It is impossible to measure the average tempeature of the earth. let alone any part of the :climate system, so there is no
reliable evidence that it is warming. However the currently available temperature series all agree that there has been no
warming for the past ten years, so the "warming is certainly NOT "equivocal" and this entire paragraph is nonsense.

69

2

112

5

112

5

All of these measurements were mad almost exclusively aover the sea, and unde restrictive circumstances. There are
almost no measurements over land surfaces so the figures are far from being globally averaged.

70

2

142

1

191

4

Most of the graphs treat the time series as if iwere based on constants. In reality all them have large uncertainties, which,
if added, would destroy the stitistical vakidity of many of the claimed trends

71

3

3

1

5

17

These are all merely the opinions of so-caljed :experts: who have a conflict of interest and therefore should not be taken
seriously. It is a shame that there are no results that can be considered to be confirmed by scientific study of future
behaviour

72

3

5

14

5

17

After all that work you make the astounding discovery that the oceans are changing!!!

73

3

1

63

9

70

Most of the graphs treat the time series as if were based on constants. In reality all of them have large uncertainties,

74

4

74

4

74

6

which, if added, would destroy the saitistical vakidity of many of the claimed trends
It is doubtful that the in situ measurements from1870 measured the same quantities as the satellites in 2919

75

6

3

41

4

4

Atmospheric concentrations are measured almost entirely over the oceans, whereas emissions are almost always
measured over land. Maybe the two are related, but you cannot be sure unil there is a comprehensive programme of
atmospheric concentration measirements over land surfaces. It is no excuse to reject transient or directuinal
measurements by claiming they are "noise"

76

6

4

6

4

18

No mention of the fact that there has been an overall downward trend in the rate of icrease since 1984

77

6

26

18

26

19

I would be interested to know how you measred the rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 1750 to 1751.

WG1 AR5 Second Order Draft Review - Comments Page 3 of 19

No

Chapter

From
Page

From
Line

To
Page

To
Line

Comments

78

6

19

5

19

14

In a very long Chapter there is hardly any information about emissions of carbon dioxide. There is not even a graph of the
actual figures, either globally or regionally or any discussion of their distribuion, methods of measurement, or accuracy.

79

1

39

1

39

2

Figure 1.4 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are very poor in predicting future temperature. Future projections based on
them are therefore unreliable

80

1

40

1

40

2

Figure 1.5 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are very poor in predicting future temperature. Future projections based on
them are therefore unreliable/

81

1

41

1

41

2

Figure 1.6 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are moderately good in predicting future atmospheric carbon dioxide. Model
projections based on them therefore have a moderate level of plausibility

82

1

42

1

42

2

Figure 1.7 shows that IPCC Scenarios are compldetely unable to forecast future levels of atmospheric methane. Model
projections based on them are therefore completely unreliable.

83

1

43

1

43

2

Figure 1.8 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are poor in predicting future N2O levels. Future projections based on them
are therefore unreliable.

84

1

47

1

47

2

Figure 1.11 shows that the IPCC Scenarios are poor in predicting future Sea levels. Future projections based on them
are therefore unreliable.

85

10

3

3

3

13

Both thes paragraphs are. untrue. There have been no comparisons between the projecions of climate models and
future climate parameters. Indeed, the comparisons of scenarios with future behaviour, which are given in Figures 1.4,
1.5. 1.6, 1.7 and show that predictability is poor for temperature, N2O and Sea Level, and completely wrong for methane.
Presumably, this paragraph is referring to consistency with past climate behaviour, which is no guide to the future and
does not justify confidence iin any of the model projections. This is particularly true for temperature, for the rather
unrelable "Global "Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly" has hardly changed for the last ten years, which shows that for
this period, the world is not currently warming, whatever the claimed increases in anthrpogenic factors. This whole
Chapter appears to believe that a proper VALDATION of model outcomes. which involves a comprehensive comparison
with future climate behaviour, can be replaced by a system of DETECTION and ATTRIBUTION based entirely on the
biased opinions of those who have been paid to produce them, and which is subject to a conflict of interest. These

86

10

3

24

3

26

"Since the mid 2th Century" is hardly a large period in human or climate history, and you ignors the fact that the"warming:
has ceased in the last 10 years.and there is no evidence that any warming is caused by human activity

87

10

3

39

3

52

Anecdotal evidence is not reliable. Measurements of temperature show that there is no current warning, Ther is also no
evidence that any warming is "anthropogenic" even if it has a subjectively assessed "fingerprint"

88

10

3

54

4

4

Merely biased opinions, not science

89

10

4

8

4

54

There is no evidence that these changes are caused by humans

90

10

5

16

5

17

You have no genuine measurement of the average temperature of the earth's surface or its possible increase. The
"Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly" is based on multiple varying samples and is unreliable. It is also prone to
a variety of upward biases related to :anthropogenic: changes in population and development. It has also been almost
constant for the past ten years. It is not currently "warming"

91

10

5

13

5

14

These "simulations:: conveniently omit the two main reasons for the increase in the :Mean Global Surface Temperature
Anomaly:which are the changes in ocean oscillations (particularly EMSO) and the biases in weather staion temeperature
measurements from uurban development and land use changes. And you actually admit that the temperature is not
currently changing, anyway!

92

10

6

3

6

18

Your models ignore scientific study of the climate which has found that internal heat exchange is from conduction,
convection and latent heat exchange, not, exclusively radiation. Instead of judging the model results by their ability to
predict future climate succesfully you rely entirely on the considered opinions of paid investigators, who apply supposed
:statistical figures to their opinions which are no more than guesswork.

93

10

6

36

6

42

Humans influence the climate evry time they put up a building or change the lamdscape. There is, however, no evidence
that any change in the climate is influenced by emissions of so-called:'Greenhouse Gases'

94

10

6

47

6

51

Based entirely on the personal opinions of your paid investigators

95

10

10

49

10

49

These sophitictad methods of studying time series all depend on the assumption that all individual items have been
obtained under identical circunstances, This assunption is hardly ever true for climate observations, particularly for long
lapses of time. This means that all of the studies are probably unreliable.

96

10

13

19

13

19

The Figure does not show "global mean temperature" which currently cannot be determined, but "Mean Global Surface
Temperature Anomaly" which is subject to much uncertainty and upward biases, so these conclusions are dubious.

97

10

15

6

15

6

These are not :"observed" or :"global mean": temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of
means of maximum and minimum tempeture from a variety of weather staions and ship measurements .

98

10

16

25

15

25

These are not :"observed" or :"global mean": temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of
means of maximum and minimum tempeture from a variety of weather staions and ship measurements .

99

10

18

40

18

40

These are not :"observed" or :"global mean": temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of
means of maximum and minimum tempeture from a variety of weather staions and ship measurements

100

10

63

55

63

56

According to the "Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly: the globe has not been warming at all for the past ten
years, so this is nonsense

101

10

89

47

89

48

A "Global Mean Anomaly: is not the same as a "Global Mean"

102

10

102

1

102

2

As I pointed out in my comments to AR4 these graphs are spurious because they do not take into account the main
reasons for the supposed increases which are the ocean oscillations (natural,notably ENSO) and urbanisation and land
use change (anthropognic).

103

10

130

1

130

2

As I pointed out in my comments to AR4 these graphs are spurious because they do not take into account the main
reasons for the supposed increases which are the ocean oscillations (natural,notably ENSO) and urbanisation and land
use change (anthropognic).

104

TS

3

13

3

14

You do not seem to realise that using only ":simulations" as a technique to judge "projections: is not enough. They will
only be considered believable if they can successfully forecast future clinate. This is something that none of them have
succeeded in doing

105

TS

4

7

4

8

It would be amazing if they found the climate was not changing

106

TS

4

30

4

30

"These are not :"observed" or :"global mean": temperatures but a series of multiple averages of a varying number of
means of maximum and minimum tempeture from a variety of weather staions and ship measurements with huge
inaccuracues

107

TS

4

35

5

53

These assessments are just the personal opinions of your paid investigators who have a conflict of interest in providing
opions acceptable to the authorities

108

TS

10

19

11

14

This section is confused and incorrect. The "Sea Level" is Relative, the diffeence between the levek of the sea and the
position of the equipment attached to the land.Both the sea and the land change from time to time and from one
measurement a nd another.The level of the sea may change because of storm protection measures, dredging of the
harbour, or measures to increase local water level to enable larger ships to enter. The land position can change in many
ways. The extent of the land may increase by reclamation frpm the sea, or decrease by erosion. It may subside from
removal of mnierals or ground water or from weight of buildings.The equipment and its ground attachment tend to be
damaged by storms and replaced in a different place. Many records are fragmented for this reason. Most of these
changes cause an upwards bias, so it is wrong, as is claimed in this Chapter, to claim that they are necessarily related to
changes on the climate. or to supposed increases un the level of the ocean caused by melting ice..It also means that the
comprehensive amalgamation of sea level "changes" carried out in this Chapter are not a reliable guide to future sea

109

TS

77

1

77

2

As usual you omit the two most important contributors to the supposed temperature ris. The are the ocen oscillations ,
notable ENSO, and the effect of urban and land use changen which you have underestimated

WG1 AR5 Second Order Draft Review - Comments Page 4 of 19

No

Chapter

From
Page

From
Line

To
Page

To
Line

Comments

110

TS

79

1

79

2

Shows that the models have predicted carbon dioxide but they are very poor at predicting temperature or sea level. Tou
have omitted methane because the model predictions are disastrous. Why should we believe they can reliably predict
future figures?

111

TS

89

1

89

2

This Figure shows that all the models are hopelessly exaggerated

112

12

18

18

18

19

You are still stuck on a 1% per annum increase in CO2 when it is only 0.5% a year. No wnder all your projections are
exaggerated

113

2

154

1

154

2

You claim that the energy is "balanced" and the parameters are all constants. This implies it is in equilibrium, but it is
not, because your "Climate System" is not isolated from imput or output of energy, so there is no reason why the energy
should be "balanced"

114

2

154

1

154

2

This model is fundamentally incorrect. A preliminary critique can be found at
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/the%20greenhousexxx.pdf . Your "Climate System" is only one part of a
complete climate system..The complete climate is a heat engine. The input energy is the radiation from the sun, which is
aborbed by each part of the earth, only by day. Some of the absorbed energy is converted ito chemical energy, which
carries out reactions to maintain all the living organisms with a decrease of entropy. This importan part of the sun's
energy is not included in your model. What remains is dispersed by conduction, convection, and latent heat exchange.
Air and ocean movements play an an important part in these processes. Their scientific study is inhibited by the "chaos"
associated with problems of fluid flow. Your model implausibly claims to have eliminated :chaos: altogether as well as
almost elimnating all of the essential mechanisms for energy transfer. Finally this energy is radiated to space from every
surface of the earth and every level of the atmosphere; which represents the exhaust of the system. The energy received

115

2

154

1

154

2

This version of the model admits that there is a "range" of possible figures for the various parameters. This alone implies
that there could never be a :balance" as the difference between input and output is now variable. In this situation any
calculated effects of increases in gennhouse gases is on top of a moving target, which may be positive or negative. In
actuallity many of the parameters are averages from skewed distributions and some are based on supposed knowledge
of the average temperature of the earth wjich is itselt afected by large inaccuracies. So this model breaks down even if
all the other implausible assumptions are accepted. The entire report is futile.

116

Atlas

0

1

0

70

It is time I gave an opinion on the entire Report. I have commented on every one of them. With AR1 my comments were
collected by the Ministry of Energy and submitted as a consolidated kist from New Zealand. With AR2 mu comments
were submitted by the Coal Research Association which was listed as a NGO. For AR3 and AR4 I submtted them as an
independent consultant. I published critiques on every one of the Reports in peer reviewed Journals and many reports
on the Internet. For AR3 it was a book, "The Greenhouse Delusion; A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001'" My actual
comments and what happened to them were never published. but I had several acceptances despite my growing
opposition to the entire enterprise.. For AR4 I submitted nearly 2000 comments, 16% of the total, all of which have been
published as the esult of a request from the Official Information Act.

117

Atlas

0

1

0

70

In most of the Reports I recommended a change in the title. The Phrase "Climate Change" gives the impression that the
Reports are to be entirely devoted to confirming the FCCC definition, which considers Climate Change to be caused by
human chamges in trace gases, whereas natural changes were merely "variable". You always modified this, but merely
in a footnote. Now in your Glossary you have defined Climate Change as any chage of climate, but the geberal public will
still think from your title that you are biased in favour of the FCCA definition. Several times gefore I have suggested
"Climate Science" as a peeferable Title and I will try it once more

118

Atlas

0

1

0

70

You seem to have given up your attempts to impose targets and your future projections of temperature change seem to
be confined to two Figures in the Technical Summary, TS13 and TFE8, which both give projections with maximum of
over 4 degrees and minimum of 1.5 degrees rise by 2100. These Figures seem to be behind recent claims in the press
and by the World Bank that you are forecasting the possibility of a rise of 4 degrees by 2100. This seems unlikely since
Figures 1.4 and 1.5 of the same Tehnical Summary show that projections are making a poor job of recent temperature
changes and show that high scenarios and projections are the least likely

119

Atlas

0

1

0

70

You have failed once more to show that the climate is influenced in any way by changes in emissons of trace gases. I
have already shown that your model is defective. You have never subjected it to the necessary discipline of validation
which requires successful prediction of a range of future climate properties. Mere simulation of past climate does not
constitute evidence. Evaluation, Detection and Attribution is an excessively complex system of organised guesswork
where the series of likelihoods and confidences are made by people who are paid to produce them and have a coflict of
interest..

Comments

Capturing CO2 and sequestering it is idiotic. Of the CO2 in our atmosphere man accounts for only 3% or 12 ppmv of the CO2, nature accounts for some 388 ppmv IPCC's own figures. Of the CO2 emitted by nature and man 98.5% of it is absorbed by plants, and for every pound of CO2 absorbed with photosynthesis some 10,000 Btu are absorbed. Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. Anyway, CO2 and all other gases in our atmosphere cool the planet because some of the incoming radiation is reflected back to space. Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will cool you. Further CFC destruction of ozone caused warming from 1966 to 2002. The Montreal Protocol ended CFC production in 2000 in developed nations an there has been slight cooling since 2002. CFC destruction of ozone caused the stratosphere to cool some 1.5C and the earth to warm some 0.6C. By 2100 the ozone in the stratosphere should be back to the 1966 level; it is gradually increasing. I am an old chemical engineer who has analyzed data most of my working life. It is simple science, attacking coal for no reason makes me mad and will hurt people in the world. I am happy some countries re waking up to the nonsense of global warming from CO2.

Bob Ashworth and Dr Vincent Gray are correct because there is no credible experiment or test that confirm the existence of the Hypotheses of the Greenhouse gas effect. As Dr.Gray points out that the IPCC has attempted to prove the existence of the GHGE with circumstantial evidence and much of it has been manipulated because the real data does not support the hypotheses.Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.Part 11. It appears that no one has asked the very critical question-Where is the credible test/experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists? There is another important question that has not been asked is "Where is the credible experiments that show that reducing the CO2 content in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in atmospheric temperature? Looking at the great quote from Albert Einstein above- If one experiment shows that an important part of the Hypotheses of Greenhouse gas effect cannot be proved or is disproved it is very likely that the Hypotheses is false from beginning to end.Here is an experiment that shows that at least 5 of the features of the Hypotheses are false and here is a reference to another experiment that shows that another feature is ass backward as presented by the CAGW crowd. The Greenhouse Effect ExploredWritten by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”Another factor that even the meteorologists have not included in there pretend thinking is "evaporative cooling that is occurring on at least 99.95 % of the earth's surface.

The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!By Berthold Klein P.E 1-15-2012 Incorporation of comments of Dr.'s Pierre Latour, Dr. Nasif Nahle and others.Dedication

To Robert W. Wood (1909) who first demonstrated that the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse effect in the atmosphere”were unscientific. To all the physicists and other scientists since Professor Wood who has added sound technical and scientific knowledge to many related field that have strengthened the case against the Hoax.

To protect my grandsons JJ and BA, their generation and all generations who follow because we finally got it RIGHT. THE GENERATIONS that would suffer extreme economical harm if the Hoax of Mann-made global warming-aka the “greenhouse gas effect” is not stopped now and forever!!

Sir Henry Fraser has an impressive CV.
Barbados' newest knight, retired university professor, Dr. Henry Fraser, received the Accolade of Knight of St. Andrew, in the 2014 Independence Day Hours. Sir Henry Fraser was named as a result of The Knighthood of St. Andrew being bestowed on him for his outstanding contribution to the medical profession and representation of Barbadian culture, especially in the area of its architectural history.Sir Henry, a medical practitioner by profession, has worked for many years as a lecturer in medicine at the University of the West Indies and now serves as an Independent Senator in the Barbados Parliament where he has gained an outstanding reputation for his work on the historic treasures of Barbados.

He has received a plethora of other awards, including the UWI’s Pelican Award, Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International and the Gold Crown of Merit (GCM) in the Barbados Honours of 1992.